Response to Boaz's Pro-Choice Advocates Only Back Choice on Abortion

[Guest guest]

TO: news@... <news@...>

To the Editor:

Mr. Boaz's empassionate plea about a woman's 'choice' could be quite

touching.

However, he is confusing the issue.

The FDA was not given dominion over providing unsafe and

unproven 'choices' to women.

Nor do they have any obligation to provide a selection (choice) of

questionable breast enhancements to the public.

Its domain is over 'safety' ... not choice.

The National Cancer Institute recently added this information to the

growing and serious concerns regarding silicone breast implants.

I quote: " when they compared the risks for the implant patients with

the general population, they found that the implant patients were

two to three times more likely to develop stomach cancer, leukemia,

and cancers of the cervix, vulva and brain.

Eleven cases of brain tumors among the implant patients were

identified on death certificates as the cause of death compared to

one case in the plastic surgery control group. "

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/silicone-othercancers

The high percentage of suicides occuring after ruptured breast

implants has now been widely reported in the British Medical Journal

and others.

How can these facts be ignored or minimized?

There is no 'oops factor' or 'recall' if down the road we 'nay

sayers' are indeed correct in our safety concerns. Inamed has

already been involved in one fiasco that required removing

thousands of soybean filled implants in Britain that had been

marketed from the United States.

http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/000918.MBX

And what is the rush?

Every woman post mastectomy already has the 'choice' of silicone

breast implants as do women who are replacing their failed implants.

There are on-going studies for those that agree to be followed up

and tested later. No promise of " FDA safety approval " are required

for these.

The FDA has a duty to maintain it's 'gold standard' of safety ...

not provide a golden goose for the plastic surgeons and

manufacturers.

Please don't ask the FDA to tell " sweet little lies " -- that simply

isn't their job.

Ilena Rosenthal

Director, Humantics Foundation

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

Pro-Choice " Advocates Only Back Choice on Abortion

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1305.html

by Boaz

April 27, 2005

LifeNews.com Note: Boaz is executive vice president of the

Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer.

Feminist groups have come out against a woman's right to control her

body. No, it's not April Fool's Day, and the story didn't appear in

the satirical paper The Onion.

The Food and Drug Administration held a three-day meeting to discuss

lifting the 13-year-old ban on silicone gel breast implants. Groups

such as the National Organization for Women and the Feminist

Majority Foundation lined up to demand that the FDA keep the ban.

" We strongly urge the FDA not to approve silicone gel breast

implants, " NOW president Kim Gandy told the FDA's scientific

advisory panel. When the panel recommended by a 5-4 vote to continue

the ban, Gandy called it " a tremendous victory for women's health. "

But what about a woman's right to choose? Wasn't NOW founded on the

principle of a woman's right to control her own body?

When an implant wearer told feminist protesters that " women need

choices, " Gandy responded, " Choice? The choice is to be sick. "

Gandy wasn't alone. The National Women's Health Network and the

National Council of Women's Organizations also petitioned the FDA to

maintain its ban.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) says of abortion, " I am not a

doctor, and I am not God. I trust other human beings to make these

decisions. " But she has written to the FDA asking it not to allow

women to get silicone implants.

Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Policy

Research for Women and Families, complains, " The FDA has placed more

emphasis on providing choices to patients, rather than the previous

emphasis of keeping potentially unsafe products off the market. "

But the " women's groups " don't speak for all women, as was apparent

at the emotional FDA hearing. Implant wearers argued heatedly. Some

told horrific stories or their own or others' experiences. Others

asked for the right to get implants, saying for instance, " We all

deserve to feel beautiful, and if not beautiful, at least normal. "

" We have a right to decide what is right for our own bodies, " said

Virginia Silverman of California, who received gel implants in 2001

and found alternative implants uncomfortable.

The FDA's nine scientific experts split on whether to allow the

implants, voting 5-4 to continue the ban on implants made by Inamed

Corp. and 7-2 to lift the ban on Mentor Corp.'s implants. That makes

it difficult to predict the FDA's eventual decision. Sally Satel, an

M.D. and psychiatrist at the American Enterprise Institute,

concludes that the best studies show the implants are reasonably

safe.

Earlier this year feminist groups were calling for quick action by

the FDA to approve a morning-after pill that would prevent pregnancy

after unprotected intercourse. The Feminist Majority Foundation

denounced the FDA for " once again [giving] in to right-wing pressure

in deciding to delay its decision. "

No drug or medical procedure is without risk. Not abortion, not

breast implants, not the morning-after pill. The question is who

makes the decision. One answer is " it's a woman's right to control

her body. " Apparently that's only the feminist answer if the

question is abortion.